Allahabad High Court
Kamlesh Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Lok ... on 21 June, 2021
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 775 of 2015
Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Lok Nirman Vibhag Lucknow & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.M. Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Mr. A.M. Tripathi learned counsel for petitioner and learned state Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.
Petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding/ directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue to work and discharge his duties on the post of Chowkidar and pay him salary and other allowances each and every month.
ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding/ directing the opposite parties particularly the opposite party no.2 to consider and decide the matter of the petitioner pending before him through representation dated 18.06.2014 as contained in Annexure No.9 to this writ petition forthwith.
iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding/ directing the opposite party no.4 to comply the direction/order issued/passed on 06.03.2013 as contained in Annexure No.4 to this writ petition as well as the order dated 08.01.2014 as contained in Annexure No.8 to this writ petition and pay all consequential service benefits to the petitioner forthwith. ......"
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially engaged on a daily wage basis in the department in the year 1985 and was subsequently disengaged in the year 1990 without any information or any notice of retrenchment. Subsequently petitioner filed writ petition No. 26317 of 2012 before this court at Allahabad with regard to payment of minimum of wages. The said petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 25th May 2007 with a direction that the concerned authority would examine the petitioner's request in case he is in employment. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner's representation was considered and rejected on 22nd August 2012. It is submitted that subsequently the State government issued a notification dated 12th December 2013 directing the department to re-engage the retrenched daily wage employees. In pursuance to the said directions, the office of Engineer in Chief, Public Works Department issued a letter dated 8th January 2014 directing the Chief Engineer, Jhansi region to take a decision in accordance with the directions issued by the State Government. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid directions of the State Government and the Engineer in Chief, the matter pertaining to re-engagement in service of petitioner is still hanging fire and has not been decided.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties on the basis of counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioner does not have any legal right for continuance in service specifically in view of the fact that he was initially engazed in service on 20th May 1985 on a daily wage basis (muster roll) and worked till 25th April 1990 therefore he absconded from service without information to the department. It is further submitted that the petitioner being merely a daily wage employee does not have a legal right to continue in service after such a long time. It is submitted that even otherwise the petitioner's representation for continuance in service has already been rejected vide order dated 22nd August 2012 and subsequently as well, the Executive Engineer, Construction-3, Public Works Department had sought the opinion of the district government counsel vide order dated 14th February 2014 and has submitted a report to the Chief Engineer but the same was not decided.
Considering the material on record and submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it is apparent that the petitioner has not worked in the department after the year 1990 and was therefore retrenched by the department itself. Subsequently although it appears that the State government issued certain directions vide order dated 12 December 2013 for re-engagement in service of the eligible daily wage employees who were earlier retrenched. It is in pursuance to the directions issued by the State Government that the Engineer in Chief vide letter dated 8th January 2014 required the Chief Engineer, Jhansi Division to pass necessary orders thereupon. In pursuance thereof, opinion from the district government counsel (civil) was obtained by the Executive Engineer and submitted his report dated 14th February 2014 to the Chief Engineer. It appears that no final decision thereupon was taken and the matter is still pending consideration.
In view of aforesaid, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh representation before the concert opposite party. In case such a representation is filed, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the said authority, keeping in mind the report dated 14th February, 2014 indicated herein above.
The petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.6.2021
prabhat
